Santamaria v. Greenfield Community College et al
Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ORDER entered. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED. The case is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. It is so ordered. See attached order for details. (Kaplan, Jennifer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LUIS R. SANTAMARIA,
) C.A. NO. 17-cv-30121-MAP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Dkt. No. 7)
April 16, 2018
Plaintiff Luis Santamaria has brought this one-count
complaint against Defendant Greenfield Community College under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered retaliation
in the form of termination based on his oral complaints about
ethnic and racial discrimination in the workplace and his filing
of a formal written complaint with the Massachusetts Commission
Against Discrimination (MCAD).
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) was also
mentioned in the motion, but the argument on this theory was
Initially, the court set the motion for oral
On further reflection and after a careful review of
the papers, the court has concluded that argument is not
For the reasons set forth below, the motion will
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
a plaintiff must show that he has alleged sufficient factual
matter to state a plausible claim.
657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011).
Haley v. City of Boston,
The factual allegations cannot
be simply conclusory or overly vague, but they need not be set
forth in minute detail.
Here, the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 11) sets forth
allegations of specific incidents of disparate treatment and
particular interactions tainted by ethnic bias.
complaint alleges that Defendant terminated Plaintiff only
three working days after he filed his complaint with the MCAD.
This quantum of facts is sufficient to make dismissal
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s MCAD filing was not
made in “good faith” because Plaintiff was aware that his
termination was imminent for non-discriminatory reasons at the
time he made the filing.
The argument suffers from at least
First, it is based on documents not within the
four corners of the complaint.
Moreover, the bad-faith
scenario relied upon by Defendant may be subject to different
interpretations after completion of discovery.
argument may perhaps be offered again at the summary judgment
stage anchored on a fuller record, but it is insufficient to
justify dismissal at this stage.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No.
7) is DENIED.
The case is hereby referred to the Magistrate
Judge for pretrial conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.
It is so ordered.
/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?